Models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research: a scoping review protocol

Abstract

Plain English summaryPatient engagement in research is an emerging approach that involves active and meaningful collaboration between researchers and patients throughout all phases of a project, including planning, data collection and analysis, and sharing of findings. To better understand the core features (elements) that underlie patient engagement, it is useful to have a look at models and frameworks that guide its conduct. Therefore, this manuscript aims to present a protocol for a scoping review of models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research. Methods: Our protocol design is based on an established framework for conducting scoping reviews. We will identify relevant models and frameworks through systematic searches of electronic databases, websites, reference lists of included articles, and correspondence with colleagues and experts. We will include published and unpublished articles that present models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research and exclude those not in English or unavailable as full texts. Two reviewers will independently review abstracts and full texts of identified articles for inclusion and extract relevant data; a third reviewer will resolve discrepancies. Our primary objective is to count and describe elements of patient engagement that overlap (present in 2 or more) and diverge among included models and frameworks. Discussion: We hope this review will raise awareness of existing models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research. Further, by identifying elements that overlap and diverge between models and frameworks, this review will contribute to a clearer understanding of what patient engagement in research is and/or could be.AbstractBackground: Patients can bring an expert voice to healthcare research through their lived experience of receiving healthcare services. Patient engagement in research is an emerging approach that challenges researchers to acknowledge and utilize this expertise through meaningful and active collaboration with patients throughout the research process. In order to facilitate a clearer understanding of the core elements that underlie patient engagement, it is useful to examine existing models and frameworks that guide its conduct. Therefore, the aim of this manuscript is to present a protocol for a scoping review of models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research. Methods: Drawing on Arksey and O’Malley’s and Levac et al.’s framework for scoping reviews, we designed our protocol to identify relevant a) published articles through systematic searches of 7 electronic databases and snowball sampling and b) unpublished articles through systematic searches of databases and websites and snowball sampling. We will include published and unpublished models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research and exclude those not in English or unavailable as full texts. Two reviewers will independently screen the abstracts and full texts of identified articles for ...

Co-producing Psychiatric Education with Service User Educators: a Collective Autobiographical Case Study of the Meaning, Ethics, and Importance of Payment

“…Throughout the process, the perspectives of service users are respected and incorporated in meaningful and mutually agreed upon ways. Working with people who are most directly affected by health services to design and deliver services together fits closely with contemporary ideas about patient-and person-centered care [3] and patient engagement [4] and is increasingly seen as a desirable feature of recovery-oriented mental health care and research [5]. However, the analogous practice of co-producing psychiatric education, in which psychiatric educators and service user educators design and deliver psychiatric training together, is still relatively unexplored.…”

Developing a Canadian evaluation framework for patient and public engagement in research: study protocol

“…Our evaluation framework development process will be supported by international evidence based on systematic reviews of evaluation frameworks for patient and public engagement in research [ 9 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 18 ], a systematic review of existing evaluation instruments [ 8 ], evaluation principles for evaluating patient and public engagement in research [ 8 ], and a systematic review of patient and public engagement outcome indicators and evaluation methods [ 32 ]. This preparation work will be used to produce background evidence documents for expert working group members, to develop Delphi questionnaires and prepare consensus meeting participants.…”

Working in partnership with communities to improve health and research outcomes. Comparisons and commonalities between the UK and South Africa

“…The plethora of terms used in this field not only reflects how valueladen it is (Stewart, 2013) but also regional differences and nuances in language. For example, in North America, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research's Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research and the US Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute use the term engagement to describe the partnership approach aimed at enabling patient-identified priorities for research (Chudyk et al, 2018). In the UK, public involvement in research is the predominate semantic, in which the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) national advisory group for public involvement (INVOLVE) defines as 'research being carried out "with" or "by" members of the public rather than "to", "about" or "for" them' (Hayes et al, 2012).…”